Short Communication
Comparing intensities and modalities within the sensory attenuation
paradigm: Preliminary evidence
Dalila Burin
a, Alvise Battaglini
a, Lorenzo Pia
a,b,⇑, Giusy Falvo
a, Mattia Palombella
a, Adriana Salatino
a,⇑aResearch Group SAMBA – Spatial, Motor and Bodily Awareness, Department of Psychology, University of Turin, via Po 14, 10123 Turin, Italy b
NIT – Neuroscience Institute of Turin, Regione Gonzole 10, 10043 Orbassano (TO), Italy
g r a p h i c a l a b s t r a c t
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Received 17 March 2017 Revised 29 July 2017 Accepted 1 August 2017 Available online 2 August 2017 Keywords: Self-generated stimuli Somatosensory attenuation Electrostimulation Nociceptive stimulation Vibrotactile stimulationa b s t r a c t
It is well-documented that the intensity of a self-generated somatosensory stimulus is perceived to be attenuated in respect to an identical stimulus generated by others. At present, it is not clear whether such a phenomenon, known as somatosensory attenuation, is based not only on feedforward motor signals but also on re-afferences towards the body. To answer this question, in the present pilot investigation on twelve healthy subjects, three types of stimulations (sensory non-nociceptive electrical – ES, nociceptive
electrical – NES, and vibrotactile – VTS) and intensities (1 = sensory threshold⁄ 2.5 + 2 mA, 2 = sensory
threshold⁄ 2.5 + 3 mA, 3 = sensory threshold ⁄ 2.5 + 4 mA for ES and NES; 1 = sensory threshold ⁄ 2 Hz,
2 = sensory threshold⁄ 3 Hz, 3 = sensory threshold ⁄ 4 Hz for VTS) have been directly compared in a
somatosensory attenuation paradigm. The results show that the attenuation effect emerged only with electrical stimuli and that it increased with higher intensities. These pilot findings suggest that, depend-ing on the type and the intensity of stimulation, re-afferences can have a role in somatosensory attenu-ation. Additionally, it is possible to speculate the effect is present only with electrical stimuli because those stimuli are prospectively judged as potentially dangerous. This, in turn, would optimize planning successful reactions to incoming threatening stimuli.
Ó 2017 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Cairo University. This is an open access article
under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Introduction
It is often thought that the sensory consequences of our own willed actions are unimportant and therefore should be discarded.
Sensory Aenuaon
The intensity of a self-generated somatosensory smulus is perceived as aenuated respect to an idencal smulus generated by others
Is the sensory smulaon based only on feedforward motor signals or also on re-afferences towards the body? Three kind of smuli (electrical,
nocicepve and vibrotacle
smulaon) and intensieswere directly compared
Results
Sensory aenuaon emerged only with electrical smuli The effect increased with higher intensies
Conclusion
These findings show that the re-afferences have a role in somatosensory aenuaon v 1 SELF OTHER 3 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jare.2017.08.001
2090-1232/Ó 2017 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of Cairo University.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer review under responsibility of Cairo University.
⇑ Corresponding authors.
E-mail addresses: lorenzo.pia@unito.it (L. Pia), adriana.salatino@unito.it
(A. Salatino).
Contents lists available atScienceDirect
Journal of Advanced Research
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / j a r eIndeed, this is not trivial but, rather, well known in the scientific literature as sensory attenuation. Self-directed, intended stimuli are attenuated compared to the same stimuli generated by others (both phenomenologically and anatomo-functionally[1–5]).
Sensory attenuation is vital for survival, since attenuation of self-generated stimuli allows enhanced salience of unexpected external events. This, in turn, makes us able to distinguish between sensations generated by our own actions and sensations resulting from external causes. It is notable that despite these considerations, which suggest the universality of such phenomena among sensory domains, current findings remain scant. Indeed, sensory attenua-tion has been clearly demonstrated within auditory and tactile domains (e.g.,[6–8]) but few data are available within the visual domain[9,10]. With respect to the interpretation of such a phe-nomenon, a first explanation states that it depends entirely on motor-related signals which would modulate the activity evoked by the incoming sensory signals. Such a hypothesis is rooted in evi-dence showing that various levels within the motor hierarchy affect sensory attenuation. For instance, the phenomenon emerges when actual sensory consequences of a voluntary action match the pre-dicted consequences[7–11]. Nonetheless, since the phenomenon also arises when there is no physical contact, it has also been linked to motor predictions[1,11–13]. Additionally, prior belief of author-ship[14], subliminal action priming[15]or expectation of move-ment[16]are known to modulate sensory attenuation. However, an alternative explanation pinpoints the role of re-afferent signals towards the body which, in turn, would mask the sensory probe. Accordingly, passive movements may also attenuate self-generated stimuli[17], and the type of movement may reduce the intensity of self-generated stimuli [16]. Overall, at present, it is not clear whether and to what extent re-afferences contribute to the emergence of sensory attenuation.
Capitalizing on all of these considerations, in the present study it has been further investigated the role of re-afferences per se in sensory attenuation. Specifically, it has been explored whether and how sensory modality and stimulus intensity affects the emer-gence of the phenomenon. Three somatosensory stimulations, often used in previous studies (i.e., sensory non-nociceptive elec-trical, nociceptive electrical and vibrotactile) [3,9,10,17–28], and three different intensities have been directly compared within a sensory attenuation paradigm (i.e., comparing self-versus exter-nally generated stimuli). Importantly, since the two stimulus fea-tures were equiprobable within each block, any type of efferent signal prior to action was prevented.
Subject and methods
Twelve right-handed[29]healthy participants (7 females, mean age: 21.96 years; mean education level: 16.04 years) were recruited for the experiment, and each signed an informed consent statement to participate in the study approved by the Bioethical Committee of the University of Turin.
Participants were seated with their hands on a table and were instructed to always keep their sight in a specific point between their hands. During the experiment, the lateral digital nerve of the right (dominant) index finger was stimulated by attached electrodes (5 cm apart) at the lateral side of the tip and base of the finger[24]. Every 20 stimulations, the experimenter slightly shifted the position of the stimulator device (to not alter the subjective sensation). In addition, for every 20 stimulations, a catch trial (i.e., a trial without stimulation) was sent to avoid response biases and to control for phantom sensations. After each stimulus, participants verbally rated the perceived intensity sensation on a 0–10 point Likert’s scale, in which 0 corresponds to ‘‘no intensity”, and 10 corresponds to the ‘‘maximum perceived intensity”. A within-subjects design study was run. Three types of stimulation were administered:
Sensory non-nociceptive electrical stimulation (ES)
For the ES, classical disposable surface electrodes (5-mm-diameter bipolar Ag/AgCl) were attached to a constant current stimulator (Digitimer Stimulator, Model DS7 A, Class 1 with Type BF applied part, EN 60601-1, produced by Digitimer Ltd, 37 Hyde-way, Welwyn Garden City, Hertfordshire, AL7 3BE- England). Pre-liminarily, the electrical (both nociceptive and not) threshold of each participant was detected: subjects with closed eyes verbally reported perception of a stimulus to their right index finger (3 out of 6 repetitions). Next, stimuli were fixed at three intensities: intensity 1 = sensory threshold⁄ 2.5 + 2 mA, intensity 2 = sensory threshold⁄ 2.5 + 3 mA, intensity 3 = sensory threshold⁄ 2.5 + 4 mA. It has been decided to use three different intensities for each type of stimulation to avoid the risk of a bias and/or a habit-uation effect and to test for a possible main effect of intensity per se. The three intensities were administered in a random order in two conditions: in 60 trials, the electrical stimulus was self-generated (condition SELF), and in the other 60 trials, it was exter-nally generated (condition OTHER) for a total of 120 stimuli.
Nociceptive electrical stimulation (NES)
For the NES, nociceptive electrodes that stimulate only alpha peripheral fibres, thanks to a pushpin-like needle electrode con-sisting of a plastic plate (1.2 cm in diameter) and a stainless steel needle (0.5 mm in diameter), were attached to the same devices used for ES [22]. The nociceptive threshold of each participant was detected using the same procedure as for the ES. Next, stimuli were delivered at fixed multiple intensities: intensity 1 = sensory threshold⁄ 2.5 + 2 mA, intensity 2 = sensory threshold ⁄ 2.5 + 3 mA, intensity 3 = sensory threshold⁄ 2.5 + 4 mA. As for ES, noci-ceptive stimuli were randomly administered in three intensities and in two conditions (SELF and OTHER conditions, 60 for each condition, for a total of 120 stimuli).
Vibrotactile stimulation (VTS)
For the VTS, the experimental device was a vibrotactile stimula-tor. The stimulator worked with a printed circuit board Arduino (www.arduino.cc), an open-source microcontroller development platform connected to a homemade processing script. As for the ES and the NES, the vibrotactile stimuli were randomly adminis-tered in three intensities (1, 2, 3) and in two conditions (SELF and OTHER condition). For VTS stimuli intensity, it has been used the same ratio scale used in ES and NES by increasing the intensity of the vibration (i.e., the frequency of revolutions of the eccentric expressed in Hz), where intensities were 1 = sensory thresh-old⁄ 2 Hz, 2 = sensory threshold ⁄ 3 Hz, 3 = sensory thresh-old⁄ 4 Hz for VTS.
The three types of stimulation (ES, NES, VTS) were administered in separated and balanced blocks between subjects to control a possible order effect; the order of stimuli intensities (1, 2 or 3) and conditions (SELF and OTHER) was randomized between subjects.
Consequently, the subject knows the agent of the action (him-self in condition SELF and the experimenter in condition OTHER) and the kind of stimulation (accordingly to the block), but he/she was not aware of the forthcoming intensity of stimulation he/she must rate.
Statistical analysis
Data analysis were conducted with Statistica 6.0. Preliminarily, data were transformed into z-scores (within subject normalization, see for details[23]). All data were normally distributed
(Shapiro-Wilk test: W > 0.794; P > 0.124); therefore, parametric analyses were conducted. Next, data in condition OTHER were subtracted from condition SELF; consequently, negative values indicated the presence of somatosensory attenuation.
A 3 3 repeated measures ANOVA with STIMULATION (ES, NES, VTS) and INTENSITY (1, 2, 3), as within subject factors, was run (Results I).
Since the ANOVA did not show significant results, each of the three stimulations were separately analysed using a one-way ANOVA with the within-subjects factor INTENSITY at three levels (1, 2, 3). Furthermore, the score of each stimulation was compared with 0 using one-sample t-tests (Results II).
Lastly, to compare the three stimulations, intensities for each type of stimulation (mean of intensities 1, 2, 3) were averaged; indeed, a one-way ANOVA was run with the factor STIMULATION at three levels (ES, NES, VTS) as within subjects (Results III). Results and discussion
Results I
Among the three stimulations, only ES showed all negative rat-ings (ES – intensity 1 = mean: 0.041; SE: 0.030; intensity 2 = mean: 0.316; SE: 0.055; intensity 3 = mean: 0.375; SE: 0.048; NES – intensity 1 = mean: 0.075; SE: 0.044; intensity 2 = mean: 0.145; SE: 0.067; intensity 3 = mean: 0.075; SE: 0.070; VTS- intensity 1 = mean: 0.095; SE: 0.023; intensity 2 = mean: 0.085; SE: 0.035; intensity 3 = mean: 0.1; SE: 0.035), suggesting a suppression effect. The 3 3 repeated measures ANOVA with STIMULATION (ES, NES, VTS) and INTENSITY (1, 2, 3) as within-subject factors did not show a significant effect (F (4, 44) = 1.076, P = 0.379, np2=0.379) (seeFig. 1).
Results II
Despite being the most intuitive analysis, the analysis described above did not reveal any effect. However, since the types of stim-ulation are intrinsically different, an alternative approach with respect to the 3 3 ANOVA could be preferable.
Sensory non-nociceptive electrical stimulation (ES) results A one-way ANOVA with within-subjects factor INTENSITY at three levels (1, 2, 3) was run. For the ES, the main factor INTENSITY was significant (F (2, 22) = 4.263, P = 0.0272, np2= 0.279). Post-hoc
analysis (using the Duncan Test) showed that ES stimulation trig-gered somatosensory attenuation, given that all intensities are negatives. In addition, intensity 1 (mean: 0.041; SE: 0.030) was significantly different (P = 0.050) from intensity 2 (mean: 0.316; SE: 0.055) and different (P = 0.013) from intensity 3 (mean: 0.375; SE: 0.048), but intensity 2 and 3 are not different between each other (P = 0.724). Finally, one-sample t-tests showed that while intensity 1 is not different from 0 (P = 0.534), intensities 2 (P = 0.022) and 3 (P = 0.002) are significantly different from 0, indi-cating a suppression effect.
Nociceptive electrical stimulation (NES) results
The same analysis were run for the NES as for the ES. The main factor INTENSITY was not significant (F (2, 22) = 0.0735, P = 0.929, np2= 0.006). Intensities in NES showed a very similar pattern 1
(mean: 0.075; SE: 0.044), 2 (mean: 0.145; SE: 0.067) and 3 (mean: 0.075; SE: 0.070). Importantly, all scores were positives; therefore, ratings in the OTHER condition were higher than those compared to the SELF condition. In addition, one-sample t-tests yielded results not significantly different from 0.
Vibrotactile stimulation (VTS) results
For the VTS, a one-way ANOVA with within-subjects factor INTENSITY at three levels (1, 2, 3) was also run. The main factor INTENSITY was significant (F (2, 22) = 4.991, P = 0.0163, np2= 0.312). Post-hoc analyses (using the Duncan Test) showed that
only intensity 3 (mean: 0.1; SE: 0.035) is significantly lower (P = 0.013) than intensity 1 (mean: 0.095; SE: 0.023) and intensity 2 (P = 0.013) (mean: 0.085; SE: 0.035) but is not significantly differ-ent from 0 (P = 0.180).
Results III
The one-way ANOVA with intensities averaged for each kind of stimulation (mean of intensities 1, 2, 3) show that the within-subjects factor STIMULATION at three levels (ES, NES, VTS) was sig-nificant (F (2, 22) = 10.617, P = 0.001, np2= 0.491). Post-hoc analyses
(using the Duncan Test) showed that only ES stimulation triggered somatosensory attenuation (mean: 0.244; SE: 0.212), and it was also significantly different from both NES (P < 0.001) and VTS (P = 0.004) (seeFig. 2).
In the present study it has been examined the role of re-afferences in somatosensory attenuation by comparing
self-Fig. 1. Scatterplot of Results I showing participants’ ratings (self minus other condition) separately for each stimulation. Each subject is represented by a different colour. Lines link averages of each type of stimulation. X-axis displays the three intensities (1, 2, 3) for each stimulation (ES, NES and VTS). No significant differences between stimulation and intensity were found.
generated- versus other-generated stimulation within three types of unpredictable somatosensory stimuli and intensities. The results showed that the phenomenon was present for electrical non-nociceptive stimulation (but not for vibrotactile and non-nociceptive ones) and that the effect increased with the intensity. It is worth noticing that within the somatosensory domain, most of the exist-ing literature on sensory attenuation employed electrical stimuli [25,26], several employed vibrotactile stimuli[3,27,28]and nox-ious stimuli[17–20,30]. However, no previous study directly com-pared these various kinds of stimuli. These results are consistent with some previous evidence, showing that sensory attenuation is not only linked to motor-related signals but also to the re-afferences that follow intended actions (e.g.,[16,21]). Indeed, a ser-ies of previous investigations has demonstrated that the sensory attenuation could not be only explained by phenomena as, for example, the temporal predictability of the stimulus [32; see also 33] or the temporal control (i.e., the presence of an action to con-trol the onset of the stimulus; cf.[34]). On the other hand, if, as suggested by the results from Lange[31]and Vroomen and Steke-lenburg[33], the sensory attenuation can also occur in absence of action, this finding might indicate that the predictive mechanisms involved in the phenomenon are not limited to the action predic-tion but may also depend on external signals as, for example, our results indicate from the type of stimulation per se. Hence, in gen-eral, the phenomenon might depend on the optimal integrations of distinct types of information, namely, efferences and afferences, which are weighted according to the given context and to signal availabilities [33,34]. The higher sensory attenuation effect for electrical stimuli (but not for vibrotactile and, particularly, noci-ceptive ones) was quite unexpected. However, it is possible to speculate concerning the following interpretation of these results. Enhancing the salience of unexpected external events has a strong evolutionary meaning because it enables prompt reaction in advance to alerting signals. This ability is strongly rooted on antic-ipation, but in this design, this approach was not possible because stimuli were already processed. In this context, electrical stimula-tion could have been perceived as in between a safe stimulastimula-tion (i.e., vibrotactile for which a response is too premature) and an unsafe one (i.e., nociceptive for which a response is too late). In other words, electrical stimuli, particularly the stronger ones, might be considered potentially more dangerous. Consequently,
those stimuli might represent a more salient event, as demon-strated by the higher rating of the ES compared to the NES and the VTS. This hypothesis is consistent with the fact that sensory attenuation increased with higher intensities as if the cognitive system would be progressively more activated for stimuli that are potentially more dangerous.
Taken together, these results seem to indicate that re-afferences could modulate sensory attenuation, although the lack of the sen-sory attenuation with the nociceptive stimulation needs to be clarified.
Study limitation
The primary limitation of the study is the small sample size of the experimental group, since it is a behavioural investigation that led to a low/medium effect size. Nonetheless, since the present study is a pilot investigation, a sample size similar to previous studies on these issues was employed[35,36]. However, it is pos-sible that the lack of effect with the nociceptive stimulation could be due to this low/medium effect size. Large sample size investiga-tions will be necessary to overcome the limitainvestiga-tions of this initial study.
Conclusions
In the present study, it has been demonstrated that re-afferences modulate sensory attenuation to optimize the efficacy of the reactions to different external stimuli. However, due to the limitation of this study, these results should be considered with caution. To investigate this hypothesis, future studies should gather additional behavioural and anatomo-functional evidence on how quantitative and qualitative features of re-afferences could modulate sensory attenuation.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by a 2014–2016 Torino University Grant (ex 60%) to L.P. and by Talenti della Società Civile 2015 (Fon-dazione Goria, Fon(Fon-dazione CRT, Fon(Fon-dazione Molo) scholarship to D. B. The authors report no conflicts of interest.
Fig. 2. Scatterplot of Results III showing participants’ ratings (self minus other condition with intensities averaged). Each subject is represented by a different colour. X-axis displays the three stimulations (ES, NES, VTS). The line links averages of each stimulation. Only ES stimulation was significantly different from both NES (P < 0.001) and VTS (P = 0.004).
Conflict of Interest
The authors have declared no conflict of interest.
References
[1]Gentsch A, Schutz-Bosbach S. I did it: unconscious expectation of sensory consequences modulates the experience of self-agency and its functional signature. J Cogn Neurosci 2011;3817–3828.
[2]Hughes G, Waszak F. ERP correlates of action effect prediction and visual sensory attenuation in voluntary action. Neuroimage 2011:1632–40. [3]Blakemore SJ, Frith CD, Wolpert DM. The cerebellum is involved in predicting
the sensory consequences of action. Neuroreport 2001:1879–84.
[4]Waszak F, Cardoso-Leite P, Hughes G. Action effect anticipation: neurophysiological basis and functional consequences. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2012;943–959.
[5]Burin D, Pyasik M, Salatino A, Pia L. That’s my hand! Therefore, that’s my willed action: How body ownership acts upon conscious awareness of willed actions. Cognition 2017;166:164–73.
[6]Bass P, Jacobsen T, Schroger E. Suppression of the auditory N1 event-related potential component with unpredictable self-initiated tones: evidence for internal forward models with dynamic stimulation. Int J Psychophysiol 2008;137–143.
[7]Blakemore SJ, Wolpert DM, Frith CD. Central cancellation of self-produced tickle sensation. Nat Neurosci 1998;635–40.
[8]Cardoso-Leite P, Mamassian P, Schutz-Bosbach S, Waszak F. A new look at sensory attenuation. Action-effect anticipation affects sensitivity, not response bias. Psychol Sci 2010:1740–5.
[9]Cardoso de Oliveira S, Barthelemy S. Visual feedback reduces bimanual coupling of movement amplitudes, but not of directions. Exp Brain Res 2005:78–88.
[10]Mifsud NG, Oestreich LK, Jack BN, Ford JM, Roach BJ, Mathalon DH, et al. Self-initiated actions result in suppressed auditory but amplified visual evoked components in healthy participants. Psychophysiology 2016;723–32. [11] Wolpert DM, Miall RC, Kawato M. Internal models in the cerebellum. Trends
Cogn Sci. 1998; 338–47.
[12]Roussel C, Hughes G, Waszak F. Action prediction modulates both neurophysiological and psychophysical indices of sensory attenuation. Front Hum Neurosci 2014;8:115.
[13]Voss M, Ingram JN, Haggard P, Wolpert DM. Sensorimotor attenuation by central motor command signals in the absence of movement. Nat Neurosci 2006;26–27.
[14] Desantis A, Weiss C, Schutz-Bosbach S, Waszak F. Believing and perceiving: authorship belief modulates sensory attenuation. PLoSOne 2012; e37959. [15]Stenner MP, Bauer M, Sidarus N, Heinze HJ, Haggard P, Dolan RJ. Subliminal
action priming modulates the perceived intensity of sensory action consequences. Cognition 2014;227–235.
[16]Voss M, Ingram JN, Wolpert DM, Haggard P. Mere expectation to move causes attenuation of sensory signals. PLoS One 2008:e2866.
[17]Beck B, Di Costa S, Haggard P. Having control over the external world increases the implicit sense of agency. Cognition 2017;54–60.
[18]Zhao K, Tang Z, Wang H, Guo Y, Peng W, Hu L. Analgesia induced by self-initiated electrotactile sensation is mediated by top-down modulations. Psychophysiology 2017;848–856.
[19]Wang Y, Wang J-Y, Luo F. Why self-induced pain feels less painful than externally generated pain: distinct brain activation patterns in self- and externally generated pain. PLoS One 2011:e23536.
[20] Müller MJ. Will it hurt less if I believe I can control it? Influence of actual and perceived control on perceived pain intensity in healthy male individuals: a randomized controlled study. J Behav Med 2012;529–37.
[21]Williams SR, Chapman CE. Time course and magnitude of movement-related gating of tactile detection in humans. III. Effect of motor tasks. J Neurophysiol 2002:1968–79.
[22]Inui K, Tran TD, Hoshiyama M, Kakigi R. Preferential stimulation of Adelta fibers by intra-epidermal needle electrode in humans. Pain 2002;247–252. [23]Romano D, Pfeiffer C, Maravita A, Blanke O. Illusory self-identification with an
avatar reduces arousal responses to painful stimuli. Behav Brain Res 2014;261:275–81.
[24]McClelland VM, Cvetkovic Z, Mills KR. Modulation of corticomuscular coherence by peripheral stimuli. Exp Brain Res 2012;275–292.
[25]Sonnenborg FA, Andersen OK, Arendt-Nielsen L, Treede RD. Withdrawal reflex organisation to electrical stimulation of the dorsal foot in humans. Exp Brain Res 2001;303–312.
[26]Lakhani B, Vette AH, Mansfield A, Miyasike-daSilva V, Mcllroy WE. Electrophysiological correlates of changes in reaction time based on stimulus intensity. PLoS One 2012:7.
[27]Saradjian AH, Tremblay L, Perrier J, Blouin J, Mouchnino L. Cortical facilitation of proprioceptive inputs related to gravitational balance constraints during step preparation. J Neurophysiol 2013;397–407.
[28]Bonnetblanc F. Can loss of sensory attenuation be accurately demonstrated using two effectors simultaneously? Brain 2015;138.
[29]Oldfield RC. The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia 1971;97–113.
[30] Wilson JA, Nimmo AF, Fleetwood-Walker SM, Colvin LA. A randomised double blind trial of the effect of pre-emptive epidural ketamine on persistent pain after lower limb amputation. Pain 2008;108–118.
[31]Lange K. Brain correlates of early auditory processing are attenuated by expectations for time and pitch. Brain Cogn 2009;127–137.
[32]Lau HC, Rogers RD, Haggard P, Passingham RE. Attention to intention. Science 2004:1208–10.
[33]Vroomen J, Stekelenburg JJ. Visual anticipatory information modulates multisensory interactions of artificial audiovisual stimuli. J Cogn Neurosci 2010;1583–96.
[34]Moore JW, Fletcher PC. Sense of agency in health and disease: a review of cue integration approaches. Conscious Cogn 2012;59–68.
[35]Geng B, Yoshida K, Jensen W. Impacts of selected stimulation patterns on the perception threshold in electrocutaneous stimulation. J Neuroeng Rehabil 2011;8:9.
[36]Li S. Perception of individual finger forces during multi-finger force production tasks. Neurosci Lett 2006;239–43.
